5.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1957 and 1956 respectively and live in Romny.
6.  Both applicants have been blind since childhood.
7.  From 1990 to 2006 the first applicant was officially employed by an enterprise run by the Ukrainian Society of the Blind (“the USB”; Українське товариство сліпих), a public organisation subsidised by the State to provide assistance to blind people. However, as appears from his employer’s statement that between 2001 and 2006 the first applicant actually worked at most a few days a year. In 2006 the first applicant reached retirement age and was dismissed on redundancy. The second applicant stopped working in the early nineties.
8.  Since 1997 the family have officially occupied two two-bedroom flats owned by the State, although the applicants claim that they have used only one of them. The flats were supplied with oven heating, but have no drains or hot running water.
9.  The applicants have given birth to seven children: O.S. born in 1991, M.S. born in 1992, Y.S. born in 1993, P.S. born in 1995, S.S. born in 1997, K.S. born in 1998 and T.S. born in 2001.
10.  In February 1998 four of the children (M.S.,Y.S., P.S. and S.S.) were taken into public care on account of the applicants’ inability to provide them with adequate care and upbringing. The children were initially placed in various institutions; however, it appears that currently all of them, except P.S., who has been adopted with the applicants’ consent, reside in the Romny Boarding School (Роменська загальноосвітня школа-інтернат І-ІІІ ступенів для дітей-сиріт і дітей, позбавлених батьківського піклування ім. О.А. Деревської).
11.  In 1997 O.S., the eldest son, who remained in the applicants’ care, was also admitted to the Romny Boarding School. The parents took him home for weekends and vacations. On several occasions the school administration complained to the municipal authorities that O.S. habitually ran away from school, wandering, collecting empty bottles and begging. No specific details or incidents were given.
12.  Between 1998 and 2004 representatives of the Municipal Juvenile Service (Служба у справах неповнолітніх) and the Tutelage Board (Орган опіки та піклування), in cooperation with several other municipal authorities, visited the applicants’ flat on some ten occasions and drafted reports concerning the suitability of the living conditions for the upbringing of the children who remained in their care. According to these reports, the conditions were grossly unsatisfactory. In particular, the premises badly needed renovation; they were cold, dirty, full of cob-webs and smelled of human excrement. Clothes and rags were scattered around the floor and on the beds. Dishes were not washed. Bedding, if present, was very dirty. The baby’s mattress had rotted in the middle because of large quantities of urine. The baby’s cot was unusable. No food was found in the kitchen. The children were dirty and dressed unseasonably. One report also noted that T.S., the smallest child, had a skin rash. According to another report “the children were sick”, although no symptoms were noted. On one occasion the children would not let the inspectors in as the parents had gone out to buy milk and the children were alone with the oldest child, O.S.
13.  On several unspecified dates between 1998 and 2004 the USB provided the applicants with various assistance of unrecorded amounts, including firewood, clothing, shoes and alimentary products (such as sugar, potatoes, grain and flour). In 1998 the USB also arranged for local student volunteers to do some renovations on the flat: in particular, to whitewash the walls and to paint the floor and windows.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicants requested the municipal authorities to equip their household with natural gas in order to improve their heating, ability to cook and access to hot water. On 10 January 2000 they were informed that their neighbours had strongly objected to this, finding it dangerous in view of the applicants’ blindness and the presence of small children. Moreover, it was technically unfeasible.
15.  On 22 February 2000 the applicants requested the Chief of the Municipal Department for Social Assistance to assist them in finding a suitable job for the first applicant. There is no information as to the ensuing response.
16.  On 22 February 2000 the Juvenile Service requested the Head of the Municipal Women’s Committee to provide humanitarian assistance to the applicants’ family. There is no information as to the ensuing response.
17.  On 16 February 2001 K.S. was examined by a doctor, who recorded that his speech development was delayed and he appeared to be suffering from first-stage anaemia. The doctor further noted that the child’s stomach was soft and not bloated; he had a normal temperature, displayed no signs of malnutrition or skin rash, no enlargement of the lymph nodes or the liver, no redness in the throat and no abnormalities in urination or defecation.
18.  On 27 February 2001 the applicants received 150 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH)[1] in financial assistance to pay for electricity.
19.  On 8 July 2003 the Municipal Committee for Social Protection and Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency warned the applicants that they needed to improve the conditions in which their children were being brought up.
20.  On an unidentified date the administration of the kindergarten attended by K.S. since 2003 issued a report on his development, stating that K.S. had attended the establishment regularly and that the parents brought him to school and took him home on time. The second applicant was reported to be actively interested in K.S.’s affairs and generally responsive to remarks by teaching and medical staff. The child was reported to be somewhat stubborn and inactive during classes, but eager to communicate with other children. On the other hand, K.S.’s classmates were reported to have been at times appalled by his untidy looks and dirty clothes.
21.  In December 2003 the Romny Children’s Health Centre certified that O.S. and K.S. had been fed at school and that they had also been provided with vouchers for summer camps, as they had been recorded as having first-stage anaemia.
22.  On an unspecified date the first applicant instituted court proceedings against his employer, seeking to collect salary arrears and various compensatory payments, including compensation for idle time, for an unspecified period ending on 31 November 2004. On 3 November 2004 the Romny Court discontinued the proceedings in view of a friendly settlement between the parties, pursuant to which the first applicant was to be paid UAH 1,500[2]. On 5 January 2006 the Romny Court further awarded the first applicant UAH 1,110[3] in various compensatory payments in respect of the subsequent idle period.
23.  On 5 January 2004 the Romny Prosecutor initiated, at the request of the Juvenile Service, court proceedings for the placement of O.S., K.S. and T.S. in public care.
24.  On 2 December 2004 the court, having heard the applicants, the Juvenile Service and the Tutelage Board, allowed the prosecutor’s claim. The relevant part of the judgment stated as follows:
“ The defendants [the applicants] do not take care of or bring the children up properly. The children are dirty, hungry, and often stay at home alone...
The representatives of the Juvenile Service and the Tutelage Board supported the claim and described the horrible (жахливі) living conditions of the defendants’ family, dirt, insufficient sanitary arrangements (антисанітарія), very poor financial state....
... According to a note from the children’s hospital of 16 December 2003, K.S. and O.S. are registered with the health centre due to first-stage anaemia...
The court established that the living conditions of the children O.S., K.S. and T.S. are dangerous for their lives and health and moral upbringing, in particular the children are dirty, hungry, dressed unseasonably, are registered with the health centre; O.S. wanders, picks up empty bottles and begs, thus the children should be removed from the defendants and transferred to the Tutelage Board...”
25.  The applicants appealed against this decision. They stated that the Family Code of Ukraine contained limited grounds for removal of children from their parents – evasion of child maintenance, cruelty, chronic alcoholism or drug addiction of parents, exploitation of children, involving them in begging and vagrancy. They insisted that they had never done any such things and that there was no proof that the conditions of their children’s upbringing, albeit basic, were in fact dangerous. The applicants further explained that the fact that they could not provide the children with better conditions was only due to their blindness. They claimed that as people with a disability they were discriminated against and underlined that the State authorities should provide their family with the necessary support instead of removing their children. The applicants also referred to Article 8 of the Convention.
26.  On 14 February 2005 the Sumy Regional Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. It repeated the conclusions of the first-instance court that leaving the children with the applicants would endanger the children’s life, health and moral upbringing. It stated, inter alia:
“The fact that the defendants were visually handicapped had no impact on the court’s conclusions. The applicants did not prove that the State authorities created disadvantageous conditions for their life. Quite the opposite, as it follows from the case file, the State authorities acted within their power to help them.
According to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the State can interfere with private and family life for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Bearing this in mind and considering the facts of the case, the court comes to the conclusion that there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention.”
27.  The applicants appealed in cassation, raising essentially the same arguments as in their previous appeal. On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the appeal in cassation. The applicants’ children were not heard at any stage of the proceedings.
28.  The judgment was enforced on 23 June 2006. Eventually, K.S. was placed in a school in Romny, while O.S. and T.S. were placed in a school in Sumy (some one hundred kilometres from Romny). According to submissions by an educational social worker (соціальний педагог) retained by O.S.’s new school dated June 2007, O.S. continued to run away from school, wandered, and often needed to be searched for.